Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

DPP advises retrial for Sam Hinds Jr

April 9, 2015 | By | Filed Under Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News 
 

Although he has already been found guilty and was awaiting sentencing, the Director of Public Prosecutions

Convicted: Samuel Hinds Jnr.

Convicted: Samuel Hinds Jnr.

(DPP) wants Magistrate Annette Singh to conduct a new trial for Samuel Hinds Jnr., the son of Prime Minister Samuel Hinds. The advice was returned from the DPP Chambers yesterday as the matter was once again called in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. Hinds, 34, had already been found guilty by former Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond in relation to a wounding charge but the case was stalled since the Magistrate received marching orders from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) the very day she was set to sentence him. Reading from the document that came from the DPP Chambers, the Prosecutor said that according to law, a final adjudication means a verdict plus a sentence. Since Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond had only returned a verdict and did not announce a sentence, it was not a final adjudication. The court heard that the new presiding Magistrate may not sentence the defendant based on a trial conducted by another Magistrate. The DPP found that a new trial was befitting in the circumstance. Last month, Magistrate Singh said that since Hinds has previously been found guilty, a retrial will be to overturn or appeal the guilty verdict, which she has no authority to do. Singh expressed readiness to go ahead and sentence the 34-year-old on the wounding charge. However, a date for sentencing has not yet been fixed. She said Hinds had already been found guilty in relation to the wounding charge and to restart the trial will be to overturn or appeal the guilty verdict. This, the Magistrate had said, is something she has no jurisdiction to do. “So my opinion is to go ahead and sentence the defendant,” the open court heard. Amid questions as to the way forward, Police Prosecutor Corporal Renetta Bentham told the court that based on the facts, the DPP has advised that the issue was whether the guilty verdict of a previous Magistrate represents a final adjudication. Hinds’s attorney-at-Law, Peter Hugh, explained that his client had pleaded and had already been found guilty and to have him tried twice for the same offence would be to offend the rule of autrefois. He said that he does not agree with the direction the Prosecution is taking as his client ought not to be tried twice for the same offence under the principle of double jeopardy. Hearing both sides, the Magistrate adjourned the matter to April 17 to decide whether she would sentence Hinds or conduct a new trial. All parties were present in court yesterday, including the Probation Officer who was ordered to be present for the next hearing. Hinds was charged in relation to an altercation he had with his teenaged sister-in-law in February last year. Reports are that Hinds, who had accused his then 18-year-old sister-in-law, Tenza Lane, of stealing one of his cellular phones, flew in a fit and, brandished a gun, thrashed and threatened to kill her at his Lot 83 Duke Street, Kingston residence on February 27, 2014. Following the incident, an unlawful wounding charge was instituted against Hinds. When Chandan-Edmond ruled in February she recapped that during the trial, the teenage girl and Police Constable Garraway were called to testify on behalf of the Prosecution. The Magistrate had said that as Hinds led his defence, he elected to give sworn evidence and called two witnesses, his fiancÉe Sonia Herbert and the teen’s grandmother, Pamela Knight. The evidence, she said, was reviewed bearing in mind the standard of proof required. The Magistrate said that as the witnesses gave their evidence, she had the opportunity to observe them and found the teen to be honest when accounting the abusive assault she suffered. Magistrate Chandan-Edmond told the Court that she had addressed and fully considered the statement of Hinds and his two witnesses, but found that she “did not accept their account of what transpired.” “I find beyond reasonable doubt that I feel sure that as a result of the defendant’s actions, the victim was wounded,” the Magistrate had remarked. The court, she said, had also considered the content of the medical certificate issued to the teen after the attack. Hinds was found guilty as charged. But the very day Chandan-Edmond was expected to sentence Hinds with the aid of a probation report, the Probation Officer did not show and the former Magistrate was dismissed. Since then her matters were heard by Singh.

 

.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

He was already found guilty, but it would seem that the Corrupt PPP/C and their pocket luminaries would stop at nothing to get this one off the hook.

 

That is the PPP/C for you, corrupt as corrupt can be.

FM
Originally Posted by asj:

DPP advises retrial for Sam Hinds Jr

April 9, 2015 | By | Filed Under Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News 
 

Although he has already been found guilty and was awaiting sentencing, the Director of Public Prosecutions

Convicted: Samuel Hinds Jnr.

Convicted: Samuel Hinds Jnr.

(DPP) wants Magistrate Annette Singh to conduct a new trial for Samuel Hinds Jnr., the son of Prime Minister Samuel Hinds. The advice was returned from the DPP Chambers yesterday as the matter was once again called in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. Hinds, 34, had already been found guilty by former Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond in relation to a wounding charge but the case was stalled since the Magistrate received marching orders from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) the very day she was set to sentence him. Reading from the document that came from the DPP Chambers, the Prosecutor said that according to law, a final adjudication means a verdict plus a sentence. Since Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond had only returned a verdict and did not announce a sentence, it was not a final adjudication. The court heard that the new presiding Magistrate may not sentence the defendant based on a trial conducted by another Magistrate. The DPP found that a new trial was befitting in the circumstance. Last month, Magistrate Singh said that since Hinds has previously been found guilty, a retrial will be to overturn or appeal the guilty verdict, which she has no authority to do. Singh expressed readiness to go ahead and sentence the 34-year-old on the wounding charge. However, a date for sentencing has not yet been fixed. She said Hinds had already been found guilty in relation to the wounding charge and to restart the trial will be to overturn or appeal the guilty verdict. This, the Magistrate had said, is something she has no jurisdiction to do. “So my opinion is to go ahead and sentence the defendant,” the open court heard. Amid questions as to the way forward, Police Prosecutor Corporal Renetta Bentham told the court that based on the facts, the DPP has advised that the issue was whether the guilty verdict of a previous Magistrate represents a final adjudication. Hinds’s attorney-at-Law, Peter Hugh, explained that his client had pleaded and had already been found guilty and to have him tried twice for the same offence would be to offend the rule of autrefois. He said that he does not agree with the direction the Prosecution is taking as his client ought not to be tried twice for the same offence under the principle of double jeopardy. Hearing both sides, the Magistrate adjourned the matter to April 17 to decide whether she would sentence Hinds or conduct a new trial. All parties were present in court yesterday, including the Probation Officer who was ordered to be present for the next hearing. Hinds was charged in relation to an altercation he had with his teenaged sister-in-law in February last year. Reports are that Hinds, who had accused his then 18-year-old sister-in-law, Tenza Lane, of stealing one of his cellular phones, flew in a fit and, brandished a gun, thrashed and threatened to kill her at his Lot 83 Duke Street, Kingston residence on February 27, 2014. Following the incident, an unlawful wounding charge was instituted against Hinds. When Chandan-Edmond ruled in February she recapped that during the trial, the teenage girl and Police Constable Garraway were called to testify on behalf of the Prosecution. The Magistrate had said that as Hinds led his defence, he elected to give sworn evidence and called two witnesses, his fiancée Sonia Herbert and the teen’s grandmother, Pamela Knight. The evidence, she said, was reviewed bearing in mind the standard of proof required. The Magistrate said that as the witnesses gave their evidence, she had the opportunity to observe them and found the teen to be honest when accounting the abusive assault she suffered. Magistrate Chandan-Edmond told the Court that she had addressed and fully considered the statement of Hinds and his two witnesses, but found that she “did not accept their account of what transpired.” “I find beyond reasonable doubt that I feel sure that as a result of the defendant’s actions, the victim was wounded,” the Magistrate had remarked. The court, she said, had also considered the content of the medical certificate issued to the teen after the attack. Hinds was found guilty as charged. But the very day Chandan-Edmond was expected to sentence Hinds with the aid of a probation report, the Probation Officer did not show and the former Magistrate was dismissed. Since then her matters were heard by Singh.

 

.

I wonder what the newly minted anti domestic violence candidate has to say about this? Does she have a word on behalf of Robson Benn jr who kicked his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach? And then there is Varshne. These people are just empty shells with everything they say or do. All of it is just opportunistic pandering to keep a grasp on the presidency.

FM

Quote "Hinds, 34, had already been found guilty by former Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond in relation to a wounding charge but the case was stalled since the Magistrate received marching orders from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) the very day she was set to sentence him."unquote

 

This stinks of Political Interferance.

 

In this election the crooked PPP/C must kick dust.

FM
Although he has already been found guilty and was awaiting sentencing, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) wants Magistrate Annette Singh to conduct a new trial for Samuel Hinds Jnr., the son of Prime Minister Samuel Hinds. The advice was returned from the DPP Chambers yesterday as the matter was once again called in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. Hinds, 34, had already been found guilty by former Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond in relation to a wounding charge but the case was stalled since the Magistrate received marching orders from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) the very day she was set to sentence him.Reading from the document that came from the DPP Chambers, the Prosecutor said that according to law, a final adjudication means a verdict plus a sentence. Since Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond had only returned a verdict and did not announce a sentence, it was not a final adjudication. The court heard that the new presiding Magistrate may not sentence the defendant based on a trial conducted by another Magistrate. The DPP found that a new trial was befitting in the circumstance.
 
 
DPP advises retrial for Sam Hinds Jr,April 9, 2015 | By | Filed Under Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

A new trial is appropriate, based on the background issues.

FM

All eyes are on this one:

 

Hearing both sides, the Magistrate adjourned the matter to April 17 to decide whether she would sentence Hinds or conduct a new trial.

 

Come May 11th the Corrupt PPP/C will definitely lose a percentage of women's vote.

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Although he has already been found guilty and was awaiting sentencing, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) wants Magistrate Annette Singh to conduct a new trial for Samuel Hinds Jnr., the son of Prime Minister Samuel Hinds. The advice was returned from the DPP Chambers yesterday as the matter was once again called in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. Hinds, 34, had already been found guilty by former Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond in relation to a wounding charge but the case was stalled since the Magistrate received marching orders from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) the very day she was set to sentence him.Reading from the document that came from the DPP Chambers, the Prosecutor said that according to law, a final adjudication means a verdict plus a sentence. Since Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond had only returned a verdict and did not announce a sentence, it was not a final adjudication. The court heard that the new presiding Magistrate may not sentence the defendant based on a trial conducted by another Magistrate. The DPP found that a new trial was befitting in the circumstance.
 
 
DPP advises retrial for Sam Hinds Jr,April 9, 2015 | By | Filed Under Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

A new trial is appropriate, based on the background issues.

white mouth collie dog,not one bone of human decency in your body

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Although he has already been found guilty and was awaiting sentencing, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) wants Magistrate Annette Singh to conduct a new trial for Samuel Hinds Jnr., the son of Prime Minister Samuel Hinds. The advice was returned from the DPP Chambers yesterday as the matter was once again called in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. Hinds, 34, had already been found guilty by former Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond in relation to a wounding charge but the case was stalled since the Magistrate received marching orders from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) the very day she was set to sentence him.Reading from the document that came from the DPP Chambers, the Prosecutor said that according to law, a final adjudication means a verdict plus a sentence. Since Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond had only returned a verdict and did not announce a sentence, it was not a final adjudication. The court heard that the new presiding Magistrate may not sentence the defendant based on a trial conducted by another Magistrate. The DPP found that a new trial was befitting in the circumstance.
 
 
DPP advises retrial for Sam Hinds Jr,April 9, 2015 | By | Filed Under Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

A new trial is appropriate, based on the background issues.

The issue here is not letting the presiding magistrate complete her case summaries before summarily firing her. The suspicion here is this case is what brought her down...she spoke truth to power and had to pay. Her supposed indiscretions were minor...she took a day off to attend a close relative's funeral and give the necessary notices. Magistrates do not turn up to court quite often. The prosecutor in this very case was absent inexplicable on many occasions and so was the defendant.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Although he has already been found guilty and was awaiting sentencing, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) wants Magistrate Annette Singh to conduct a new trial for Samuel Hinds Jnr., the son of Prime Minister Samuel Hinds. The advice was returned from the DPP Chambers yesterday as the matter was once again called in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. Hinds, 34, had already been found guilty by former Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond in relation to a wounding charge but the case was stalled since the Magistrate received marching orders from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) the very day she was set to sentence him.Reading from the document that came from the DPP Chambers, the Prosecutor said that according to law, a final adjudication means a verdict plus a sentence. Since Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond had only returned a verdict and did not announce a sentence, it was not a final adjudication. The court heard that the new presiding Magistrate may not sentence the defendant based on a trial conducted by another Magistrate. The DPP found that a new trial was befitting in the circumstance.
 
 
DPP advises retrial for Sam Hinds Jr,April 9, 2015 | By | Filed Under Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

A new trial is appropriate, based on the background issues.

The issue here is not letting the presiding magistrate complete her case summaries before summarily firing her. The suspicion here is this case is what brought her down...she spoke truth to power and had to pay. Here supposed indiscretions were minor...she took a day off to attend a close relative funeral and giving the necessary notices. Magistrates do not turn up to court quite often. The prosecutor in this very case was absent inexplicable on many occasions and so was the defendant.

Nonetheless, a new trial date with another magistrate would be apt in this situation.

 

Further, a decision must be made on this case.

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Although he has already been found guilty and was awaiting sentencing, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) wants Magistrate Annette Singh to conduct a new trial for Samuel Hinds Jnr., the son of Prime Minister Samuel Hinds. The advice was returned from the DPP Chambers yesterday as the matter was once again called in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. Hinds, 34, had already been found guilty by former Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond in relation to a wounding charge but the case was stalled since the Magistrate received marching orders from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) the very day she was set to sentence him.Reading from the document that came from the DPP Chambers, the Prosecutor said that according to law, a final adjudication means a verdict plus a sentence. Since Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond had only returned a verdict and did not announce a sentence, it was not a final adjudication. The court heard that the new presiding Magistrate may not sentence the defendant based on a trial conducted by another Magistrate. The DPP found that a new trial was befitting in the circumstance.
 
 
DPP advises retrial for Sam Hinds Jr,April 9, 2015 | By | Filed Under Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

A new trial is appropriate, based on the background issues.

The issue here is not letting the presiding magistrate complete her case summaries before summarily firing her. The suspicion here is this case is what brought her down...she spoke truth to power and had to pay. Here supposed indiscretions were minor...she took a day off to attend a close relative funeral and giving the necessary notices. Magistrates do not turn up to court quite often. The prosecutor in this very case was absent inexplicable on many occasions and so was the defendant.

Nonetheless, a new trial date with another magistrate would be apt in this situation.

 

Further, a decision must be made on this case.

You and I know it that if given a second trial he will walk. It is also unlikely the state will try him again. Notice Robson Benn's Jr trial has also not seen the light of day. The fellow who raped the 14 year old is also going to walk I say these things with no likelihood of being wrong because that is what inevitably happens when the politically connected are brought before our courts. Remember the famous case where buddy got off because the prosecutor could not adequately substantiate Diesel was a petroleum product?

FM

Except that his lawyer is saying they don't want a new trial.

 

This was definitely political!

 

That's why we need 5 more years of these crooks.  We are gluttons for punishment!

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Although he has already been found guilty and was awaiting sentencing, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) wants Magistrate Annette Singh to conduct a new trial for Samuel Hinds Jnr., the son of Prime Minister Samuel Hinds. The advice was returned from the DPP Chambers yesterday as the matter was once again called in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. Hinds, 34, had already been found guilty by former Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond in relation to a wounding charge but the case was stalled since the Magistrate received marching orders from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) the very day she was set to sentence him.Reading from the document that came from the DPP Chambers, the Prosecutor said that according to law, a final adjudication means a verdict plus a sentence. Since Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond had only returned a verdict and did not announce a sentence, it was not a final adjudication. The court heard that the new presiding Magistrate may not sentence the defendant based on a trial conducted by another Magistrate. The DPP found that a new trial was befitting in the circumstance.
 
 
DPP advises retrial for Sam Hinds Jr,April 9, 2015 | By | Filed Under Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

A new trial is appropriate, based on the background issues.

The issue here is not letting the presiding magistrate complete her case summaries before summarily firing her. The suspicion here is this case is what brought her down...she spoke truth to power and had to pay. Here supposed indiscretions were minor...she took a day off to attend a close relative funeral and giving the necessary notices. Magistrates do not turn up to court quite often. The prosecutor in this very case was absent inexplicable on many occasions and so was the defendant.

Nonetheless, a new trial date with another magistrate would be apt in this situation.

 

Further, a decision must be made on this case.

You and I know it that if given a second trial he will walk. It is also unlikely the state will try him again. Notice Robson Benn's Jr trial has also not seen the light of day. The fellow who raped the 14 year old is also going to walk I say these things with no likelihood of being wrong because that is what inevitably happens when the politically connected are brought before our courts. Remember the famous case where buddy got off because the prosecutor could not adequately substantiate Diesel was a petroleum product?

I do not know what will be the verdict in a new trial.

 

Each case is addressed on its merits and lawyers would try to present issues from other decisions to bolster their cases.

 

In the end, Judges or Magistrates determine the relevant information to make their decisions.

FM

Home girl has a history of abusing her status and thinks she was judge  outside the courtroom as well.She abused her baby sitter in 2009 and was playing footsies with her sick days and vacation time. Privileged lifestyle it seems.

FM
Originally Posted by simple:

Home girl has a history of abusing her status and thinks she was judge  outside the courtroom as well.She abused her baby sitter in 2009 and was playing footsies with her sick days and vacation time. Privileged lifestyle it seems.

I took her to task for her abuse of the sitter. The fact those charges were not the reasons they canned her. They did so on account of her supposed neglect of her office by taking unsanctioned time off. They also did it after a year of reprimanding her and a week before she was to rule on this  case.

FM
Last edited by Former Member

http://gtmosquito.com/the-bite...nnot-be-tried-again/

 

Legal note: Sam Hinds Jr cannot be tried again

Apr 9, 2015
13

It is disturbing to read in the Stabroek News that the Director of Public Prosecutions would be calling for a retrial in the Sam Hinds Jr case.

The son of the Prime Minister was found guilty by Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond on February 6 for an unlawful wounding charge, specifically stamping on his sister-in-law’s head and dragging her around the floor by her hair. And he beat her with a stick.

There were several delays after the guilty decision as the court awaited a probation report and that Chandan-Edmond was subsequently fired just before she was to sentence Hinds.

Now SN reports this morning:  “At yesterday’s hearing, however, Hinds Jr received yet another stay, after Magistrate Singh further adjourned the matter to rule on whether the court will grant the prosecution a retrial; or proceed to sentence. When the case was called yesterday for report, Prosecutor Renetta Bentham explained that the DPP has advised that the matters be retried as they are now before another magistrate.”

But Article 144 of the Constitution could not be clearer: you cannot be tried again once found guilty of an offence.  Here is the section.

DPP

 

Were the new magistrate to call for a retrial, all the defendant’s lawyer Peter Hugh would need to do would be to enter a plea of autrefois convict, a fancy French term that is a plea made by a defendant, indicted for a crime or misdemeanor, that he has formerly been tried and convicted of the same.

Mars
DPP
 
Legal note: Sam Hinds Jr cannot be tried again,The Bite, Apr 9, 2015

The Magistrate was removed from her post before rendering a decision.

 

This section of the laws, while it can be contested by a lawyer to avoid a further trial, does not apply in this specific case.

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by simple:

Home girl has a history of abusing her status and thinks she was judge  outside the courtroom as well.She abused her baby sitter in 2009 and was playing footsies with her sick days and vacation time. Privileged lifestyle it seems.

I took her to task for her abuse of the sitter. The fact those charges were not the reasons they canned her. They did so on account of her supposed neglect of her office by taking unsanctioned time off. They also did it after a year of reprimanding her and a week before she was to rule on this  case.

Sewer, You criticised her for the abuse because the victim was a buck woman. If the victim was a coolie, you would have manufactured some garbage excuse to defend the lady. You call other people racists, but you are the extreme one here.

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
DPP
 
Legal note: Sam Hinds Jr cannot be tried again,The Bite, Apr 9, 2015

The Magistrate was removed from her post before rendering a decision.

 

This section of the laws, while it can be contested by a lawyer to avoid a further trial, does not apply in this specific case.

The defendant was found guilty by the magistrate before she was fired. He was already convicted as the language in the constitution states.

Mars

The decision was not rendered personally and publicly by the Magistrate in the courts.

 

Hence, while it was made in a private setting, it was not effective.

 

A new trial with a new Magistrate in in order.

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

The decision was not rendered personally and publicly by the Magistrate in the courts.

 

Hence, while it was made in a private setting, it was not effective.

 

A new trial with a new Magistrate in in order.

You know shit. He was already convicted. He was to return for sentencing. Go and get you moral compass fixed, Old Fool!

Mitwah

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×